Don't believe the larger pixel myth.

We have all seen low pixel count cameras that look sharper. But I doubt you know why.

Put two buckets outside in the rain and under the awning. One bucket fills whilst the other is empty.

Now spread out jam jars, some will be full some empty and some neither one nor the other. Now tell me the jam jars aren't catching the rain drops properly, I will tell you, you are talking out your ass. But what if the bucket that was under the awning is half in half out? now you think the rain is getting under the awning? No! Well the same thing happens when you put jam jars out in rain that is barely spotting with rain, like your shirt it gets spots, well the jam jars will all vary in level slightly, but the bucket? Who knows? If you put more smaller pixels on the camera , you need to average out the pixels to get rid of the spots, but then you lose resolution. So what! With the lower res sensor you have the same resolution, but your edges will look rough as hell!

We have all seen low pixel count cameras that look sharper. But I doubt you know why.

Put two buckets outside in the rain and under the awning. One bucket fills whilst the other is empty.

Now spread out jam jars, some will be full some empty and some neither one nor the other. Now tell me the jam jars aren't catching the rain drops properly, I will tell you, you are talking out your ass. But what if the bucket that was under the awning is half in half out? now you think the rain is getting under the awning? No! Well the same thing happens when you put jam jars out in rain that is barely spotting with rain, like your shirt it gets spots, well the jam jars will all vary in level slightly, but the bucket? Who knows? If you put more smaller pixels on the camera , you need to average out the pixels to get rid of the spots, but then you lose resolution. So what! With the lower res sensor you have the same resolution, but your edges will look rough as hell!

I am by no means an expert on the subject, but unless I'm mistaken, pixel size/resolution of a camera sensor has nothing to do with the sharpness of the final image. It does however, play a role in signal to noise ratio.

We have all seen low pixel count cameras that look sharper. But I doubt you know why.

Put two buckets outside in the rain and under the awning. One bucket fills whilst the other is empty.

Now spread out jam jars, some will be full some empty and some neither one nor the other. Now tell me the jam jars aren't catching the rain drops properly, I will tell you, you are talking out your ass. But what if the bucket that was under the awning is half in half out? now you think the rain is getting under the awning? No! Well the same thing happens when you put jam jars out in rain that is barely spotting with rain, like your shirt it gets spots, well the jam jars will all vary in level slightly, but the bucket? Who knows? If you put more smaller pixels on the camera , you need to average out the pixels to get rid of the spots, but then you lose resolution. So what! With the lower res sensor you have the same resolution, but your edges will look rough as hell!

Larger pixels per area given the same system act will 'hide' smaller movements during exposure. Otherwise a sub micron 'pixel' and a 2ft wide one will be equally sharp

Guys, please! If all other things were equal, then sure tiny pixels would be better than fat ones...

BUT ALL OTHER THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL!

That's why a D4 beats a D800 for shooting in anything other than perfect (bright) light off of a tripod.

I LOVE fat pixels. I find the tonal gradations to be much smoother and more life-like. Especially for people shots. The D800 totally failed to float my boat.

If Nikon would put a modern 12-16 MP FX sensor into a camera that didn't weigh a ton and cost a fortune (D4) or have hopelessly bungled ergonomics and a crippled feature set (Df), I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I don't want no stinkin' 36 MP. Heck, I'd rather have a D40 with 6 MP.